Why is death tragic and how tragic?

[T00ts]

It is not.
The bombers gladly tell us in their pre-bombing videos that they are willing and glad to die because they know that the 'next world/afterlife' etc is a better place than this one, and that dying is a step they need to take to cross that path.

Do you have an alternative?

I guess we could 'discuss' all day but I find your view on human life and its fortune almost inhuman. Sadly my study tells me that the suicide bomber has got his ideology mixed up. That is not his fault since he knows no different and I would hope that not he, but the false prophet/teacher who persuaded him of that is judged accordingly. Fortunately that is not my role.

I would be interested to learn what you would feel if at whatever age AI decided purely on logic that your time had come. How will you look into the eyes of those who might love you and see the fear and misery in their eyes. Many who lose family members regret not doing more for the deceased or blame themselves in some way. More to the point how will you feel when you get the message to report for removal? What of your hopes or wishes? Perhaps in this brave new world, humans will have their human feelings removed. I do not envy you if it should come to that.

[Barry]

For good or ill, all other things being equal, most people would agree that a dead 80 year old is more desirable than a dead 20 year old.

Couldn't agree more.

The implications of these outcomes as we developed a more AI based society can not be overstated.

Fixed that. AI is what it is. We program the systems for our needs and use it to society's advantage. From what you are suggesting this might result in disadvantage to an individual based on applied parameters.

Humans (and soon AI) make decisions about who should live or die every day.

So true. That's why I mentioned N.I.C.E. in a thread the other day as they decide on what expense can be paid for a short extension to a life. I wouldn't want to be making those decisions.

This is the same logic as the suicide bomber uses, I think it is a poor argument.

Bit below the (suicide) belt, that one. I've not seen any Christian suicide bombers, though I'm sure Google can find one somewhere.

[Nalaar]

I think that's quite demeaning as an argument.

It is not.
The bombers gladly tell us in their pre-bombing videos that they are willing and glad to die because they know that the 'next world/afterlife' etc is a better place than this one, and that dying is a step they need to take to cross that path.

Your view that AI will make crucial decisions such as you describe just proves to me how far the world might sink before realisation dawns.

Do you have an alternative?

[T00ts]

For good or ill, all other things being equal, most people would agree that a dead 80 year old is more desirable than a dead 20 year old.

The implications of these outcomes as we developed a more AI based society can not be overstaed.

Humans (and soon AI) make decisions about who should live or die every day.

This is the same logic as the suicide bomber uses, I think it is a poor argument.

I think that's quite demeaning as an argument. Your view that AI will make crucial decisions such as you describe just proves to me how far the world might sink before realisation dawns.

[Nalaar]

Ethically, is it better to save the life of a 20 year old or an 80 year old?

For good or ill, all other things being equal, most people would agree that a dead 80 year old is more desirable than a dead 20 year old.

The implications of these outcomes as we developed a more AI based society can not be overstaed.

It is not our decision who should live or die

Humans (and soon AI) make decisions about who should live or die every day.

If we believe in an after life then we must surely accept that death is not a waste at any age. If we understand that life continues after death perhaps the need for us to be there is greater than the need for us to stay here. Perhaps there is more worthwhile work in the after life for us and the Lord determines who is needed. Perhaps too there is something for those left behind here to learn and grow through.

This is the same logic as the suicide bomber uses, I think it is a poor argument.

[T00ts]

Scenario:
1920 epidemic.
The virus kills mostly young people in their 20s and 30s and their are many gravestones to show deaths of young men recently returned from war.

2020 epidemic.
The virus kills mostly old people over 70.

We all know that everyone has to die and for me the death of a young person with 40 to 50 years of life ahead of them is a greater tragedy than the death of an 80 year old who has pretty much done it all.

Ethically, is it better to save the life of a 20 year old or an 80 year old?

I can't help but feel that you are missing the point. It is not our decision who should live or die. We have evolved a society that feels that death at pretty much any age is unfair simply because those who love them are not ready for the separation. We have also evolved science to a point where they often feel in some ways invincible. We hold them to account by demanding that they save all.

It isn't our choice. If we believe in an after life then we must surely accept that death is not a waste at any age. If we understand that life continues after death perhaps the need for us to be there is greater than the need for us to stay here. Perhaps there is more worthwhile work in the after life for us and the Lord determines who is needed. Perhaps too there is something for those left behind here to learn and grow through.

Mankind gets so proud and so self centred and yet if we acknowledge that God is supreme, that death is not a punishment but a call home, then life itself becomes much more comprehensible.

[Barry]

Scenario:
1920 epidemic.
The virus kills mostly young people in their 20s and 30s and their are many gravestones to show deaths of young men recently returned from war.

2020 epidemic.
The virus kills mostly old people over 70.

We all know that everyone has to die and for me the death of a young person with 40 to 50 years of life ahead of them is a greater tragedy than the death of an 80 year old who has pretty much done it all.

Ethically, is it better to save the life of a 20 year old or an 80 year old?